Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Apollo 11 and Modern America's Can't-Do Spirit
Investor's Business Daily ^ | 07/18/2014 | IBD Staff

Posted on 07/19/2014 6:28:23 AM PDT by IBD editorial writer

Cultural Inertia: Remember how 45 years ago we were suddenly able to say: "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we (fill in the blank)"? If only we could say the same today.

It's worth remembering Neil Armstrong's July 21, 1969 "giant leap for mankind," if only as a measure of what the country used to be able to accomplish, but increasingly can't do today.

When President Kennedy announced his goal of "sending a man to the moon and returning him safely to earth" in less than nine years, it was a laughably audacious promise.

By May 1961, all the country had managed to achieve in space was to toss Alan Shepard up in a 15-minute suborbital flight powered by a tiny Redstone rocket.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: apollo11; brooklynbridge; buzzaldrin; highways; michaelcollins; moonlandings; nasa; neilarmstron; neilarmstrong; spaceexploration

1 posted on 07/19/2014 6:28:23 AM PDT by IBD editorial writer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IBD editorial writer

May not be as grand as setting men on the moon, but landing a 1 ton rover on a planet millions of miles away is pretty impressive to me.
But I do get the point.....


2 posted on 07/19/2014 6:34:31 AM PDT by 12th_Monkey (One man one vote is a big fail, when the "one" man is an idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IBD editorial writer

The Left hated the manned space program. Antagonized the Soviets, militarized space, and spent money on projects that could’ve been used “to help the poor people of the world”.


3 posted on 07/19/2014 6:46:24 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Elian Gonzalez sought asylum and was sent back to Cuba, send these kids back to THEIR parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Yep, I remember that.


4 posted on 07/19/2014 6:48:01 AM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IBD editorial writer
It's like this:

If Americans can't protect their children from illegal drug pushers in grammar schools--they can't do anything.

If Americans can't face the truth about their elected officials, including the President of the United States--they can't do anything.

If Americans can't control their national borders--they can't do anything.

There's a big difference between the Americans of the 21st century and the Americans who stormed the beaches of Normandy--destroyed the Nazi Regime in Germany--won the Cold War--conquered polio--put a man on the moon--etc.--etc.--etc.

5 posted on 07/19/2014 6:56:08 AM PDT by Savage Beast (Hubris and denial overwhelm Western Civilization. Nemesis and tragedy always follow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
The Left hated the manned space program. Antagonized the Soviets, militarized space, and spent money on projects that could’ve been used “to help the poor people of the world”.

Lots for folks on this forum share the same opinion. Stupid is like gold, it's wherever you find it.

6 posted on 07/19/2014 6:56:53 AM PDT by Islander7 (There is no septic system so vile, so filthy, the left won't drink from to further their agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IBD editorial writer
I disagree with a lot of the author's points here.

On the one hand, it's great that NASA was able to land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth back in 1969. But a lot of what's behind NASA's "calcification" is that it doesn't make any sense to do these major undertakings just for the sake of doing them. A huge government program in an era that saw the most massive growth in government spending our nation had ever seen isn't necessarily a good indication of our nation's "can-do" spirit.

When you look back at 1969 and see what has developed in space since then, a better question might have been: "What was the point?" There's often a fine line between useful endeavors and constructing massive pyramids just for the sake of building monuments to our egos.

I'd make the case that the most useful developments in space occurred long before 1969. If you had asked people in 1960 which was a more impressive accomplishment ... landing a man on the moon or putting a satellite in permanent orbit, they'd probably pick the first one -- almost unanimously. And yet here we are in 2014, and the permanent presence of thousands of satellites in orbit around the earth (along with a space station that has been manned continuously for almost 14 years) has literally revolutionized the way humans live here on earth. And in retrospect, traveling to the moon seems more and more like a waste of time and money.

7 posted on 07/19/2014 7:06:19 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("What in the wide, wide world of sports is goin' on here?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IBD editorial writer

Well part of the problem is we have cut back NASA’s budget so much that it’s a joke of it’s former self. Some things you should just fund because the payoff (science in this case) is worth WAY more than what you pay for it.


8 posted on 07/19/2014 7:16:37 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

The same can’t-do mentality is exemplified by the idiots who claim the moon landings were faked, or that bin Laden’s terrorists didn’t destroy the World Trade Center towers or crash into the Pentagon, or DO claim that the Earth’s climate is being shaped by human activity.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-pictures/


9 posted on 07/19/2014 7:21:41 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
You are a case study in what's wrong. You and the rest of the country have shifted your gaze from the future, from improving, from actually accomplishing something to staring into your own navel and trying to please yourself. Now.

All those satellites in orbit, why? So HBO can broadcast ever more prurient, self-destructive garbage into homes. Sure, it is convenient for my wife to be able to call during my 45 minute commute (which is the only time of day I am not two feet from a phone) but is is absolutely transforming? No.

The current generation thinks that because they can please their own appetites quicker, the world has been transformed.

We actively work against true transformation. Nuclear power could have transformed electrical power generation, but we have made that technology practically illegal. The interstate highway system, railroad, power lines, cars, name pretty much any truly transformative technology and then picture it being invented today. It would go nowhere.

Millions of people just like you would look down their noses and ask a rhetorical "Why?". We are forever locked in today because we no longer have the ability to picture tomorrow. Every new technology and idea can only be imagined in terms of our daily lives right now. We can't picture our world or our lives changing anymore.

10 posted on 07/19/2014 7:27:54 AM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: IBD editorial writer

If you visit Cape Canaveral and the mock-up of the control room - one thing stands out. The many companies represented, and their control and management of the systems of Apollo 11 - Boeing, McDonnel, Sperry, Rockwell.

Apollo 11 was not a triumph of a government agency - it was a triumph of American private industry and individuals, brought together for one specific, clear goal.

If anyone thinks the US Federal Government is going to lead the nation on to greater advances in space, that person is nuts.


11 posted on 07/19/2014 7:28:59 AM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Satellite technology, missile technology, countless US government gains.
12 posted on 07/19/2014 7:30:21 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Elian Gonzalez sought asylum and was sent back to Cuba, send these kids back to THEIR parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

The bigger “what was it all for” question comes up when one looks at what President Obama has done to gut the remnants of the program/team and to surrender all claims of “advantage”.

Same as he is decimating our military and retroactively surrendered the Cold War to his Soviet betters.


13 posted on 07/19/2014 7:32:24 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Elian Gonzalez sought asylum and was sent back to Cuba, send these kids back to THEIR parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
Well part of the problem is we have cut back NASA’s budget so much that it’s a joke of it’s former self. Some things you should just fund because the payoff (science in this case) is worth WAY more than what you pay for it.

Looks like the budget has been pretty consistent to me. Link

What we have now that we didn't have 45 years ago is a commercial space industry. We have private companies delivering supplies to the ISS. We have private companies working on a capsule system to get astronauts up to the ISS. Is there anyone here who honestly believes that the private companies won't accomplish all that better, faster, and more cost effectively than NASA ever could?

14 posted on 07/19/2014 7:36:39 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: IBD editorial writer

I am sure it is just a coincidence that it also coincides with ‘diversity’ being it most important mission over the last 40+ years.

NASA Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Implementation Plan

http://odeo.hq.nasa.gov/documents/diversityInclusion.pdf


15 posted on 07/19/2014 7:39:48 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
That has to be one of the strangest posts I've seen on FreeRepublic in a while. I am a case study in what's wrong? Why, because I have the presence of mind to look back and assess the value of something that required a substantial investment of time and money?

I'm not sure why you focus on HBO and cellular telephone technology in your post. For one thing, HBO existed as a cable TV station long before satellite television existed, and cell phones use terrestrial signal transmission technology, not satellites. Secondly, satellite technology goes far beyond personal convenience and entertainment. In my business I use global-positioning data, mapping and satellite imagery for major civil engineering projects. And my clients use this technology for things like crop yield analysis, measuring forest growth over time, and tracking fleets of vehicles all over North America.

I'm not going to sit here and say that YOU are "a case study in what's wrong," but if you think satellite technology is all about convenience and entertainment than I'm going to suggest that maybe you don't know enough about the subject to weigh in on it here.

We are forever locked in today because we no longer have the ability to picture tomorrow.

What kind of gibberish is this? It sounds like something you'd find in a political speech by a candidate with an IQ of around 90. I don't know about you, but I "picture tomorrow" all the time. And the irony is that what really makes it most difficult to "picture tomorrow" is that on a personal level, we have already solved almost every problem that faced the human race up until the last 50-100 years. That's a nice problem to have, isn't it?

16 posted on 07/19/2014 7:53:35 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("What in the wide, wide world of sports is goin' on here?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise; All
I should be clear on this topic ...

The points I raised in my first post weren't aimed at the U.S. space program in general, but at the lunar missions in particular. And now in 2014, when we have the benefit of 30+ years of hindsight, I would make the same statements about NASA's space shuttle program. There's a reason why NASA shuts major programs like this down, and it's not all about politics or "calcification."

17 posted on 07/19/2014 8:01:02 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("What in the wide, wide world of sports is goin' on here?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: IBD editorial writer

NASA turned in to a big PC political tool. Chuck Yeager was the only one with the gonads to prevent the Gemini and Apollo programs from turning in to an affirmative action social statement. If we were ever to send another group to the moon or Mars the first lesbian Hispanic, gay Asian, transgendered black, would all be required regardless of qualification.


18 posted on 07/19/2014 8:18:19 AM PDT by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
When you look back at 1969 and see what has developed in space since then, a better question might have been: "What was the point?"

The Apollo program had a tremendous inspirational value, and if it weren't for the Soviets pushing us, we wouldn't have had that. Most politicians never liked NASA because they had other ways to buy votes, and NASA never had overwhelming public support. Even though some FReepers like to blame liberals for NASA's decline, it was Nixon who led the charge when it came to scaling back their programs and budget.

Something to be positive about is more non-government participation in space exploration. I'm a fan of Elon Musk: a legal immigrant, American citizen, and our most successful African-American.

19 posted on 07/19/2014 8:20:05 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Organic Panic

Chuck Yeager was the only one with the gonads to prevent the Gemini and Apollo programs from turning in to an affirmative action social statement.

Really?


20 posted on 07/19/2014 8:27:36 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

No mention of the Old Negro Space Program?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6xJzAYYrX8


21 posted on 07/19/2014 8:28:40 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Organic Panic

Coming July 20th, 2014: ‘Whitey on the Moon’: Race, Politics, and the death of the U.S. Space Program, 1958 - 1972

Paul Kersey


22 posted on 07/19/2014 8:37:12 AM PDT by Sheapdog (Chew the meat, spit out the bones - FUBO - Come and get me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

“When you look back at 1969 and see what has developed in space since then, a better question might have been: “What was the point?” There’s often a fine line between useful endeavors and constructing massive pyramids just for the sake of building monuments to our egos.”

I think people in Spain were saying that in 1493 after Columbus came back.


23 posted on 07/19/2014 8:51:54 AM PDT by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: oldbill

There’s a huge difference between terrestrial exploration in places where human beings can live in their natural environment and landing on a moon or planet where there’s no chance in hell of surviving outside a highly controlled (and expensive) environment.


24 posted on 07/19/2014 8:59:59 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("What in the wide, wide world of sports is goin' on here?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: IBD editorial writer
From the article:Having lived in Louisville, KY for almost 40 years before retiring to South Carolina, I can comment on this. The author speaks the truth. All this dithering has been about (yet another) bridge from Louisville over the Ohio River to Indiana.

First there were years of dithering over whether the bridge should be built in downtown Louisville, where there are already three bridges, or to the east of the city to finish the I265 ring around Louisville and Southern Indiana. The east route won that dithering.

Then there was more dithering as there are historic buildings in the way of the best path for the continuation of the Interstate to the river where the bridge will be built. Finally! The obvious solution! Build a tunnel under the historical structures! True brilliance!

I was in Louisville in early July. It looks like they have finally started construction.

I can't remember the estimated cost but I'd bet $100 that, like Boston's "Big Dig," the eventual bridge will cost several times the initial investment.

Of course, millions have already been spent on engineering studies and consultants.

For some local historical perspective, the Second Street Bridge in Louisville (another bridge over the Ohio River) was built between 1928 and 1928 for a mere $4.7 million. The John F Kennedy bridge (yet another downtown bridge) that carries I-65 traffic over the Ohio River was built between 1961 and 1963 for $10 million.

For a pretty thorough discussion of this on-going fiscal fiasco, click here. If you follow that link, think about how much additional cost Political Correctness has added to this project.

With all due respect to Louisville, glad I don't live there anymore.

25 posted on 07/19/2014 9:01:11 AM PDT by upchuck (The country is being billed for its own execution. ~ h/t: SpaceBar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I'm not going to sit here and say that YOU are "a case study in what's wrong," but if you think satellite technology is all about convenience and entertainment than I'm going to suggest that maybe you don't know enough about the subject to weigh in on it here.

I worked on implementing GPS. If you look at the technology people are interested in on a daily basis, it is all about satisfying themselves right now. You look at satellites and think it is the pinnacle of space technology because it affects your world today. You reject anything in space because it doesn't relate to your job today.

If you were making decisions in 1960 you would have rejected satellites because you wouldn't be able to see what possible connection it would have with your daily life.

The difference between you and the decision makers in 1960 is that they could envision some of the benefits. You can see only costs.

You snort at the moon landing because that is all you can see, one isolated event in history. People who made it happen could see a lot farther until Richard Nixon came along and sought to please the navel-gazers.

I am not saying we should give NASA a blank check -- they have the same malady as the rest of society. Healthy, growing societies want to know what is over the horizon. Stagnant, dying societies only concern themselves with the same problems humanity has always had.

And the irony is that what really makes it most difficult to "picture tomorrow" is that on a personal level, we have already solved almost every problem that faced the human race up until the last 50-100 years.

What problems are those? Our society is currently trying to solve the problems of greed, selfishness, and powerlust and offering political solutions (Marxism) that only make those problems worse.

We have greatly reduced the size of some problems (for example, infectious diseases) but not too many have been absolutely solved. What kind of gibberish is this? It sounds like something you'd find in a political speech by a candidate with an IQ of around 90. I don't know about you, but I "picture tomorrow" all the time.

Nice personal attack. What I mean is that people can't see any benefit to something like nuclear power. They can only see the costs. They flee in fear at the word "radiation" with no understanding of what it is. Nuclear is a transformational technology, but has never been allowed to reach its full potential. The technology has nearly been abandoned, and has been stagnant for the last forty years because society won't accept it. No serious basic research is being done because it is moot at this point.

26 posted on 07/19/2014 9:01:40 AM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: IBD editorial writer

Nothing looms larger over our “lesser” America than that ridiculous replacement for our Twin Towers. It’s a stunning reminder of a reduced country. I despise it.


27 posted on 07/19/2014 9:05:18 AM PDT by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Yes. Yeager was pressured to find qualified black astronauts. The problem was there weren’t any. And even when brought up to be nearly forced to promote black astronauts he stood his ground.


28 posted on 07/19/2014 9:18:39 AM PDT by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: IBD editorial writer

Nasa also supplied funding for many other aerospace projects too besides space. Reagan turned many of us loose on the National Aerospace Plane ( mach 25) and at least three of the six enabling technologies had been accomplished.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3106539/posts?page=1
I think I was more impressed with Neil Armstrong flying an X-15 rocket plane than the first moon walk.
The only national goal it seems we have now is letting an invasion take place in our country.


29 posted on 07/19/2014 9:29:57 AM PDT by OftheOhio (never could dance but always could kata - Romeo company)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
In terms of space travel, I don't look at how something affects my own life as much as I look at the cost and feasibility of having the same thing -- or something reasonably close to it -- done at a far lower cost in a different way. Think of a hypothetical case where NBC broadcasts the 2040 Summer Olympics from a studio on Jupiter. Yeah, it's great that the human mind could accomplish such a thing. But is it really any better than broadcasting from, say, the moon -- or even right here on earth?

This kind of rationale is what ultimately led to the demise of the lunar programs for NASA. After the first mission, the "investment" immediately faced a future of diminishing returns unless a realistic case could be made that the moon held some potential that couldn't be realized elsewhere -- like something related to its position relative to the earth, a new mineral or other material that had tangible human benefits, etc.

You're confusing a prudent, objective analysis of a situation with a complete dismissal of it. The question isn't whether we should do something or do nothing ... it's whether we should do A or do B. I'd be curious to know what you think the U.S. -- and the world at large -- would have looked like today if the lunar program had continued indefinitely after the early 1970s. I contend that nothing of any substance would have happened if the U.S. continued the space program (course "A"), and in fact we might be worse off today because the space program would have come at the expense of other pursuits (course "B") that had more substantive, tangible benefits in the long run.

Your example of nuclear power is a good one, because nuclear power is clearly a case where one technology is on the table that provides almost the same benefit as another. The question today isn't whether we should use nuclear power or live in caves ... it's whether nuclear power is better, cheaper, or more effective than other sources of power (natural gas, hydroelectric, etc.). It's no accident that for the one application where nuclear power has a clear, tangible and measurable value over "conventional" fuel -- I'm referring to the use of nuclear power for naval vessels to enable them to operate at sea for months or years without refueling -- there's really no debate about the issue at all. The case has been made, the technology has been developed and improved over time, and nobody with half a brain is clamoring to go back to the "good old days" when the U.S Navy operated all of its ships using diesel power, steam or sails.

30 posted on 07/19/2014 9:38:12 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("What in the wide, wide world of sports is goin' on here?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: IBD editorial writer

If we can send Americans to the Moon, we can send Mexicans back to Mexico.


31 posted on 07/19/2014 9:41:33 AM PDT by GreenHornet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

You stated the plain truth elegantly.

Thank you


32 posted on 07/19/2014 9:52:12 AM PDT by Peter W. Kessler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All


Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


33 posted on 07/19/2014 9:56:42 AM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

“And the irony is that what really makes it most difficult to “picture tomorrow” is that on a personal level, we have already solved almost every problem that faced the human race up until the last 50-100 years. That’s a nice problem to have, isn’t it?”

If you say so, then it must be.

Obviously, tomorrow will bring no new problems that will impact the human race and life on Earth. So why work on such things now, when we can safely and comfortably wait until the problem is apparent? It would take just a moment to figure out what to do about an 50 mile-wide asteroid coming from behind the sun on a collision course the Earth! Child’s play! Or Earth getting blasted by multiple humongous solar flares which will fry every electronic gadget on Earth or in orbit - too easy. We could go on here, but what’s the point, since we’ve got it covered?

Sheesh - let tomorrow take care of itself. We can do better staring at our personal and collective navels while using our tax dollars to feed the homeless, house and care for every person who decides to cross the Mexican border, since we have solved every problem facing the human race already.

Moreover, when you look closely at all the stuff that came out of the Apollo program, they were just so obvious anyway, and people would have come up with the same solutions without spending all those precious tax dollars to bring back worthless hunks of Lunar rock.

So yes, you are right - as usual - there is absolutely no need to explore the solar system using humans - we are too fragile and require too many resources. We can better use people with vision to look into the important things we may encounter while doing important social work or working in other important mundane fields.

Inspiration, hope - who needs them? We are a mature society now and no longer need to explore or pioneer anything - especially not using humans in space - some of them might die! The terrible headlines, the endless talking heads, the embarrassment, the humiliation, the distraction from the really important events of the day - can you image?

Let’s agree to keep our personal and collective heads down and above all: Never Look Up!


34 posted on 07/19/2014 10:20:35 AM PDT by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PIF
That's not quite what I meant, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the world has changed quite a bit when we're looking at basically euthanizing our elderly because so many of them have managed to survive all of the threats to human existence that used to kill us for thousands of years.
35 posted on 07/19/2014 10:31:02 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("What in the wide, wide world of sports is goin' on here?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Funny how you jump right to entertainment.

When the Americas were colonized, there was a complete lack of infrastructure and no real discernible benefit. All the same resources were available in Europe. It was expensive and difficult to access.

Along the way, benefits were gleaned that were simply not foreseeable, from dietary staples like corn, potatoes and tomatoes to the political and economic benefits the US has provided to Europe across the last two centuries.

Most of the technological advances that have made the biggest difference in our world have been unanticipated just as many of the benefits of the new world were unanticipated. And the bigger the benefit, less obvious it is that it will provide any personal benefit. Which makes it nearly impossible to justify on your terms.

36 posted on 07/19/2014 11:30:10 AM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
I only used the entertainment example because you had mentioned HBO in your prior post. LOL.

When the Americas were colonized, there was a complete lack of infrastructure and no real discernible benefit. All the same resources were available in Europe. It was expensive and difficult to access.

I completely disagree with most of what you've said here. For one thing, "infrastructure" was not nearly as important a consideration back then because transportation in ocean-going vessels eliminated the need for roads, and because things like power grids and sanitary sewers weren't in use yet anyway. And ironically, it was the lack of infrastructure elsewhere that drove the European exploration in the 15th through the 17th centuries. Those early explorers were seeking trade routes to the Far East, which were deemed necessary because of the difficulty of transporting things through inhospitable terrain with no roads, through areas with unfriendly foreign governments, etc.

And I don't know where you get this idea that "all of the same resources were available in Europe." If that were the case, then there would have been no need for these nations to trade at all. Lumber, for example, was a prized commodity in Europe back then. By the time Christopher Columbus landed in North America I'm sure most of western Europe had been stripped clean of any trees that might have grown there at one time (there's a reason why stone houses are common in old European cities). In the case of North America, there was such an abundance of trees that a country like England didn't ship lumber back to Europe -- they established an entire shipbuilding industry here in North America. Tall hardwoods in the area that is now New Hampshire and southern Maine were especially valuable for that industry, since they were ideally suited for masts on sailing ships.

In fact, I'd make the case that England ended up surpassing Spain, France and the Dutch as a global empire because trade was so important to England. Just look at the British Isles -- both their tiny size and their location in an area where harsh weather made conditions so difficult for agriculture -- to see why it was almost inevitable for them to become the dominant empire-builders of the last few hundred years.

Most of the technological advances that have made the biggest difference in our world have been unanticipated just as many of the benefits of the new world were unanticipated. And the bigger the benefit, less obvious it is that it will provide any personal benefit. Which makes it nearly impossible to justify on your terms.

I can't disagree with you about the "unanticipated" nature of technological advances and the benefits they provide, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to just go out and explore new horizons on the odd chance that something of great benefit might come out of it. To make my case I'd simply point out the difference between exploring North America and exploring Antarctica. At some point, after the euphoria of reaching the South Pole for the first time wore off, even the most ambitious explorer would look at Antarctica and recognize that his efforts would be put to better use elsewhere. That's why we've come to 2014 and things like dogsledding to the South Pole or climbing Mount Everest have become nothing more than expensive, dangerous hobbies. And guess what ... space travel is slowly moving in that direction, too!

37 posted on 07/19/2014 12:02:34 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("What in the wide, wide world of sports is goin' on here?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Peter W. Kessler
Would it were not so, Peter.

People get the kind of government they deserve--and vice versa.

38 posted on 07/19/2014 12:21:57 PM PDT by Savage Beast (Hubris and denial overwhelm Western Civilization. Nemesis and tragedy always follow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Organic Panic

In particular, it was one black astronaut. I learned something new today.

http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-wrong-stuff-ed-dwight-story-john-f.html


39 posted on 07/19/2014 12:43:28 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
For one thing, "infrastructure" was not nearly as important a consideration back then because transportation in ocean-going vessels eliminated the need for roads, and because things like power grids and sanitary sewers weren't in use yet anyway.

Infrastructure means more than roads. The earliest settlers had no way to feed themselves despite the abundance of resources. Go out and plant a garden on a random bit of land for your only sustenance and you will starve.

And I don't know where you get this idea that "all of the same resources were available in Europe."

When they climbed off the ship they could not point to anything that did not exist back home. Even lumber. It was more accessible and in greater abundance, but the same can be said for a lot of resources on earth vs asteroids.

England could have decided not to care about anything past their shoreline. Building a navy and trading empire was expensive and most of the people who started to do it would never see a benefit in their lifetimes.

Of course, they don't anymore. Their society is shrinking by any measure, more concerned with shorter timespans and smaller horizons. We are doing the same.

Why go to the moon or mars when you can subsidize street people and welfare bums for votes? Why care what is happening next door to our oil supply when we can worry about getting free abortions?

The rest of the world has had the luxury of turning in on itself because we were there to solve the problems they didn't care about. We won't be there anymore. And those problems will be our problems.

40 posted on 07/19/2014 2:12:28 PM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: IBD editorial writer
What about the Strategic Defense Initiative?

The U.S. decided that they couldn't make it work. They are still trying, yes, but that conclusion has been in place for awhile.

Israel thought they could make it work. They got the U.S. to fund it in return for the results of R&D. An IDF General risked his career and almost jail to advance the project. Now Iron Dome has a 90% success rate and a longer range defense system will be rolled out starting next year.

This speaks to the hollowing-out of American R&D. In this case, the U.S. government needed to go elsewhere for ingenuity and inventiveness.

41 posted on 07/19/2014 2:47:19 PM PDT by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

“... the world has changed quite a bit when we’re looking at basically euthanizing our elderly ...”

Once old people were the caretakers of their grand-kids, euthanasia was not even thought of in those days.

Now we have Our Great Leader’s Zeke Emanuel inspired Death Panels for old people (over 65) ... yes, we progress. Nice change of topic, by the way! Well done!


42 posted on 07/19/2014 5:08:36 PM PDT by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: IBD editorial writer

Apollo 11 @ 45 – A Record Unbroken

43 posted on 07/20/2014 9:09:02 AM PDT by mikrofon (Space BUMP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson